Teachers must be proficient at using data to evaluate the effects of instructional strategies and interventions, and must be able to make, describe, justify, and validate their data–based instructional decisions to parents, students, and educational colleagues. An important related skill is the ability to accurately read and interpret progress–monitoring graphs. This study examined preservice special education teachers’ graph reading and interpretation skills at two points in time. Participants used a think–aloud procedure to interpret a curriculum–based measurement (CBM) progress monitoring graph, and results were compared to those of CBM experts. Overall, preservice teachers tended to say fewer words than graph experts did. Furthermore, their descriptions of CBM graphs were less sequentially coherent, specific, and reflective. Little change was observed at time 2. Implications for improving teacher preparation in this skill area are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArdoinS. P., ChristT. J., MorenaL. S., CormierD. C., & KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum–based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM–R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 1–18.
2.
BegenyJ., & MartensB. K. (2006). Assessing pre–service teachers’ training in empirically–validated behavioral instructional practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 262–285.
3.
BergC. A., & SmithP. (1994). Assessing students‧ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple–choice and free–response instruments. Science Education, 78(6), 527–554.
4.
CarpenterP. A., & ShahP. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2), 75–100.
5.
ChristT. J. (2008). Best Practices in Problem Analysis. In ThomasA. & GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 159–176). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
6.
ChristT. J., ArdoinS. A., & EckertT. (2014). Formative assessment and instrumentation procedures for reading (FAIP–R): Curriculum based measurement for reading (English Version). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
7.
ChristT. J., SilberglittB., YeoS., & CormierD. (2010). Curriculum–based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 447–462.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum–based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
11.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum–based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
12.
DitkowskyB., & KoonceD. A. (2010). Predicting performance on high–stakes assessment for proficient students and students at risk with oral reading fluency growth. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 159–167.
13.
EspinC. A., WaymanM. M., DenoS. L., McMasterK. L., & de RooijM. (2017). Data–based decision–making: Development of a method for studying teachers’ understanding of CBM graphs. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32(1), 8–21.
14.
FoegenA., EspinC. A., AllinderR., & MarkellM. (2001). Translating research to practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs in curriculum based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 34, 226–236.
15.
GoodR. H. & KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved 2 November 2004[14]. https://dibels.uoregon.edu. Accessed 4 January 2017.
16.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 614 et seq.
17.
JonesE. D. & KrouseJ. P. (1988). The effectiveness of data–based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for students with mild learning handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11, 9–20.
18.
KennedyM. J., WagnerD., StegallJ., LembkeE., MiciakJ., AlvesK. D., et al. (2016). Using content acquisition podcasts to improve teacher candidate knowledge or curriculum based measurement. Exceptional Children, 82, 303–320.
19.
KilgusS. P., MetheS. A., MagginD. M., & TomasulaJ. L. (2014). Curriculum–based measurement of oral reading (R–CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta–analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52(4), 377–405.
20.
LeeY. S., & LembkeE. (2016). Developing and evaluating a kindergarten to third grade CBM mathematics assessment. ZDM, 48, 1019–1030.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (2001). 20 U.S.C. § 603 (2002).
23.
ParkerR. I., VannestK. J., DavisJ. L., & ClemensN. H. (2012). Defensible progress monitoring data for medium–and high–stakes decisions. The Journal of Special Education, 46(3), 141–151.
RitcheyK. D., McMasterK. L., Al OtaibaS., PuranikC. S., KimY. S. G., ParkerD. C., et al. (2016). Indicators of fluent writing in beginning writers. In CummingsK. D. & PetscherY. (Eds.), The Fluency Construct (pp. 21–66). New York: Springer.
27.
SilberglittB., BurnsM. K., MadyunN. H., & LailK. E. (2006). The relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: Longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527–535.
28.
SteckerP. M., FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum–based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
